Manager Ron Gardenhire said that since last season ended, Justin Morneau had appendicitis, chicken pox and a lung infection that led to pneumonia.
The chicken pox was reported, but the two more serious problems weren't. The Twins wanted to fly Morneau into camp over the weekend, but he was still too sick to travel. It's unclear now whether his problems will have him start the season at less than 100 percent.

Yeah that stuff is really going to effect his preformance this year.Are you being sarcastic? :?:

Flight #24

02-21-2005, 10:44 AM

Yeah that stuff is really going to effect his preformance this year.

Ummmm....a guy who has offseason issues that prevent him from working out into the beginning of ST often is slow to get going once the season starts.

That description apparently applies as much to Morneau given the Rotoworld blurb on his issues as it does to Frank given his well-publicized ankle injury.

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 01:42 PM

Ummmm....a guy who has offseason issues that prevent him from working out into the beginning of ST often is slow to get going once the season starts.

That description apparently applies as much to Morneau given the Rotoworld blurb on his issues as it does to Frank given his well-publicized ankle injury.

Riiiight. Morneau is reporting in 3-4 days late, Thomas is reporting in a month and a half late. Chicken pox vs ankle injury.

Apples = Apples. Obviously.

SoxxoS

02-21-2005, 01:46 PM

:tealpolice:

For this whole thread.

I am more excited that Morneau hasn't proved he can hit Left handed pitching. .240 with 3 HR's in 75 at bats (does anyone want to bet one of those three was Marte or Cotts?) and a .716 OPS doesn't look very good. Hopefully it gets worse this year.

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 01:51 PM

Riiiight. Morneau is reporting in 3-4 days late, Thomas is reporting in a month and a half late. Chicken pox vs ankle injury.

Apples = Apples. Obviously.You should have stopped yourself from posting this the second you started comparing Justin Morneau to Frank Thomas.

vance

02-21-2005, 01:54 PM

You should have stopped yourself from posting this the second you started comparing Justin Morneau to Frank Thomas.

Why? I would not be surprised to see Morneau finish this season with better numbers than Thomas.

Flight #24

02-21-2005, 01:57 PM

Riiiight. Morneau is reporting in 3-4 days late, Thomas is reporting in a month and a half late. Chicken pox vs ankle injury.

Apples = Apples. Obviously.

I'll be honest - I dont' know when he's reporting. My point is that it's highly likely that he'll start slower and be impacted by these into the season. I don't see him being able to do a lot physically with things like appendicitis, lung infections, and chicken pox. I wouldn't think it'd last all season, but I would anticipate him starting slowly. DD77 seemed surprised that that would be the case.

Not to mention that all reports are that Frank's expected in camp in early March, which by my count is a lot less than 6 weeks. Where are you getting your data?

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 02:00 PM

You should have stopped yourself from posting this the second you started comparing Justin Morneau to Frank Thomas.

I was responding to someone else who was "comparing" the two of them. Besides, we're "comparing" injuries, not on field performance. I know who the better player is.

But if you are talking which one will be playing MLB games in April or May, I'm going with the 24 year old.

MRKARNO

02-21-2005, 02:04 PM

But if you are talking which one will be playing MLB games in April or May, I'm going with the 24 year old.

And if you're talking about which one will be playing MLB games in Mid-October, I'll take the 36-year old. :D:

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 02:04 PM

Not to mention that all reports are that Frank's expected in camp in early March, which by my count is a lot less than 6 weeks. Where are you getting your data?

Well, I thought it was common knowledge that Frank is taking a long time to heal. I did a google search and found this:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/fantasy/story/8195049
In the trainer's room:

Or not yet in it all … in the case of Frank Thomas, who will be reporting to camp late because of the slow progress after ankle surgery. Thomas is likely to miss at least the first month of the season, especially if he cannot get to camp for rehab. Carl Everett, who will serve as the White Sox DH until Thomas returns, has already reported and gave the White Sox a bit of good news, in fact, Friday. Everett fulfilled management's request of getting in shape, reporting to camp 20 pounds lighter than expected.

Almost an Elder...

OEO Magglio

02-21-2005, 02:05 PM

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.asp?leaguenum=&sport=MLB&id=7063Between this guy and Joe "No Knees" Mauer, I'm not too afraid of them.
I'd be afraid of the twins if they had KC's roster and no I'm not being sarcastic. No matter what they have they find ways to win. Either the sox or twins will win this division, be afraid of the twins, always be afraid of the twins.

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 02:07 PM

Why? I would not be surprised to see Morneau finish this season with better numbers than Thomas.If both were 100% healthy, who do you think would be putting up the better numbers?

Flight #24

02-21-2005, 02:22 PM

Well, I thought it was common knowledge that Frank is taking a long time to heal. I did a google search and found this:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/fantasy/story/8195049
In the trainer's room:

Or not yet in it all … in the case of Frank Thomas, who will be reporting to camp late because of the slow progress after ankle surgery. Thomas is likely to miss at least the first month of the season, especially if he cannot get to camp for rehab. Carl Everett, who will serve as the White Sox DH until Thomas returns, has already reported and gave the White Sox a bit of good news, in fact, Friday. Everett fulfilled management's request of getting in shape, reporting to camp 20 pounds lighter than expected.
Almost an Elder...

Well, I was going on the numerous reports from Chicago media that have Frank coming in IIRC March 3 or 4. AP appears to be running with Ozzie's old comments that he's not planning on Frank being available until June. The line in there that should be a red-flag that the AP guy doesn't really know anything firsthand is that Frank "cannot get to camp for rehab". Haven't we heard that he's been rehabbing in Vegas with ARow's trainer & the docs?

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 02:30 PM

Well, I was going on the numerous reports from Chicago media that have Frank coming in IIRC March 3 or 4. AP appears to be running with Ozzie's old comments that he's not planning on Frank being available until June.

I'm only using the AP reports, so I could be off. :cool:

Bottom line, is that Frank is 36 years old. He's not going to be able to handle a 140 game season anymore. If Ozzie/KW are smart, they HAVE to protect him, and bench him once every 3-4 games. If he plays in 110 games, this season will be a huge success.

If he tries to "grind out" 130 games, he'll break down. pun intended

Iwritecode

02-21-2005, 02:48 PM

I'm only using the AP reports, so I could be off. :cool:

Bottom line, is that Frank is 36 years old. He's not going to be able to handle a 140 game season anymore. If Ozzie/KW are smart, they HAVE to protect him, and bench him once every 3-4 games. If he plays in 110 games, this season will be a huge success.

If he tries to "grind out" 130 games, he'll break down. pun intended

He's a DH so IMHO that should give him a better chance of playing more games.

Why? I would not be surprised to see Morneau finish this season with better numbers than Thomas.

If they were both healthy for the full year, I'm not sure who I'd expect to have better numbers. They had almost the exact same number of plate appearances last year and were pretty even, though I'd give the edge to Frank:

Minnesota's going to be dangerous because of Radke and Santana. They may get tripped up because of their putrid middle infield. Whether Nathan can repeat his performance is a question mark too. Outstanding bullpen work has been a hallmark of this Twins run.

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 03:08 PM

And without Morneau for a substantial portion of the year.

Minnesota's going to be dangerous because of Radke and Santana. They may get tripped up because of their putrid middle infield. Whether Nathan can repeat his performance is a question mark too. Outstanding bullpen work has been a hallmark of this Twins run.I wonder about Santana. He's seen a big increase in IP over the last 2 years:

2002: 108 IP
2003: 158 IP
2004: 228 IP

For a hard thrower like Santana, that often portends problems.

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 03:17 PM

Ummmm....a guy who has offseason issues that prevent him from working out into the beginning of ST often is slow to get going once the season starts.

That description apparently applies as much to Morneau given the Rotoworld blurb on his issues as it does to Frank given his well-publicized ankle injury.

A physically injury which could have lingering affects or re-occurrence vs a diseases which once treated will have no affect what so ever. Morneau may be fatigued form ailments and have a few bad weeks in spring training. More importantly those aliments shouldn't have any factor on his regular season performance.

santo=dorf

02-21-2005, 03:20 PM

Why? I would not be surprised to see Morneau finish this season with better numbers than Thomas.

Morneau's OBP will be at least 60 points less than Thomas'.

And Ma-gaga, who's the Twins' insurance if Morneau goes down, LeCroy? He have Crazy Carl for Thomas. :cool:

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 03:25 PM

I wonder about Santana. He's seen a big increase in IP over the last 2 years:

2002: 108 IP
2003: 158 IP
2004: 228 IP

For a hard thrower like Santana, that often portends problems.

A more in-depth look at if Santana is good candiate for an injury from use is Pitcher Abuse points. Sanatana had 24193 points which 72 in major last year. He pitched good number of innings but his number of pitches was low.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/pap_pitcher2004.html

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 03:25 PM

A physically injury which could have lingering affects or re-occurrence vs a diseases which once treated will have no affect what so ever. Morneau may be fatigued form ailments and have a few bad weeks in spring training. More importantly those aliments shouldn't have any factor on his regular season performance.Aren't you the same guy who's been carping about "injury-prone" Jermain Dye because he broke his leg a few years ago?:?:

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 03:28 PM

Aren't you the same guy who's been carping about "injury-prone" Jermain Dye because he broke his leg a few years ago?:?:

I don't think I said Dye was injury-prone but hopefully you aren't trying to say Dye's broken leg had just as much negative effect on his career as the last time Dye caught the flu.

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 03:35 PM

A more in-depth look at if Santana is good candiate for an injury from use is Pitcher Abuse points. Sanatana had 24193 points which 72 in major last year. He pitched good number of innings but his number of pitches was low.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/pap_pitcher2004.htmlIt's not just last year but the increase from year to year that seems to be important.

2004: 24193 PAP
2003: 14219 PAP

They didn't have numbers for 2002, but that's a pretty big increase from one year to the next, roughly in line with his increase in IP. It doesn't matter so much for finesse-type pitchers, but for hard-throwers like Santana it could indicate a down year coming.

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 03:51 PM

I'm only using the AP reports, so I could be off. :cool:

Bottom line, is that Frank is 36 years old. He's not going to be able to handle a 140 game season anymore. If Ozzie/KW are smart, they HAVE to protect him, and bench him once every 3-4 games. If he plays in 110 games, this season will be a huge success.

If he tries to "grind out" 130 games, he'll break down. pun intendedBench a DH every 3-4 games? What are you smokin'? :smokin: Frank got injured from playing 1B, not from being a DH.
A more in-depth look at if Santana is good candiate for an injury from use is Pitcher Abuse points. Sanatana had 24193 points which 72 in major last year. He pitched good number of innings but his number of pitches was low.

Bench a DH every 3-4 games? What are you smokin'? :smokin: Frank got injured from playing 1B, not from being a DH.
"Pitcher Abuse points"? This stat crap has gotten ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Nah, just people can't handle new ways to look at the game. Wait they have always been ridiculous.

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 03:59 PM

Nah, just people can't handle new ways to look at the game. Wait they have always been ridiculous.Sorry, but the idea of "Pitcher Abuse points" is completely moronic. It's not a new way to look at the game; it's a stupid way to look at the game. Injuries are unpredictable. You can't make a stat to forsee when they will happen. Stat-heads need to log off of BaseballProspectus.com and actually watch a game once in awhile.

JRIG

02-21-2005, 04:03 PM

:mad: Sorry, but the idea of "Pitcher Abuse points" is completely moronic. Injuries are unpredictable. You can't make a stat to forsee when they will happen.

Yes. It's a coincidince that after being pitched into the ground at a young age in the early-mid 90s, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere all suffered career-ending injuries.

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 04:04 PM

:mad:

Yes. It's a coincidince that after being pitched into the ground at a young age in the early-mid 90s, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere all suffered career-ending injuries.That's great. I already knew that pitchers who throw harder tend to get injured more. :rolleyes: Why the hell would anyone need a stupid, arbitrary number to tell them that?

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 04:06 PM

Sorry, but the idea of "Pitcher Abuse points" is completely moronic. Injuries are unpredictable. You can't make a stat to forsee when they will happen. Stat-heads need to log off of BaseballProspectus.com and actually watch a game once in awhile.Pitcher abuse points is not without its flaws, but it is one of the better statistics to evaluate how hard a pitcher was worked over the course of the year. It's based on the assumption that the wear on a pitcher is non-linear, so that going from 100 to 115 pitches is much harder on a pitcher than going from 85 to 100 pitches. I think that's pretty reasonable. Its main problem is that it counts 0 PAP points for a start of 100 pitches or less, which isn't very realistic.

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 04:06 PM

Morneau's OBP will be at least 60 points less than Thomas'.

And Ma-gaga, who's the Twins' insurance if Morneau goes down, LeCroy? He have Crazy Carl for Thomas. :cool:

uh... I don't want to think about it.

If Morneau can't play first base, you'll probably see a platoon of LeCroy and Mauer. They've talked about DH'ing Mauer to save the knee. I could see him playing games at first base if Morneau misses time. I AM worried about seeing too much Mark Redmond this year. :(:

vance

02-21-2005, 04:07 PM

If both were 100% healthy, who do you think would be putting up the better numbers?

Probably Frank. But he's on the downside while Justin is on the upside. I don't think Morneau will have the career that Frank has, but I do think he's going to be a hitter that consistiently hits 30+ HRs.

Due to the fact that Thomas is on the wrong side of thirty and coming off an injury plagued season, I'd have to project Morneau to have the better numbers.

JRIG

02-21-2005, 04:08 PM

uh... I don't want to think about it.

If Morneau can't play first base, you'll probably see a platoon of LeCroy and Mauer. They've talked about DH'ing Mauer to save the knee. I could see him playing games at first base if Morneau misses time. I AM worried about seeing too much Mark Redmond this year. :(:

Would it be as bad as seeing too much of Henry Blanco last season? :wink:

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 04:10 PM

Would it be as bad as seeing too much of Henry Blanco last season? :wink:

No. :cool: They are the same type of player. But they had the best pitching staff in the AL last year. *edit* WHEN that slips they'll need a little more offensive firepower, and Mauer appears to fill that.

samram

02-21-2005, 04:16 PM

:mad:

Yes. It's a coincidince that after being pitched into the ground at a young age in the early-mid 90s, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere all suffered career-ending injuries.

I'm not taking sides in the whole stats/tools debate, but can you tell me which injury ended Wilson Alvarez's career?

santo=dorf

02-21-2005, 04:18 PM

I would also like to see a study on what is more likely to damage a pitcher's arm. Too many innings pitched, or poor mechanics. :dunno:

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 04:21 PM

I'm not taking sides in the whole stats/tools debate, but can you tell me which injury ended Wilson Alvarez's career?You did hear that Wilson Alvarez's career was over? The Dodgers just resigned him out of the kindness of their hearts. :tongue: :wink:

JRIG

02-21-2005, 04:21 PM

I'm not taking sides in the whole stats/tools debate, but can you tell me which injury ended Wilson Alvarez's career?

My bad (and I realized it right after I posted), not career-ending, but...

Alvarez missed all of 2000 and 2001 with rotator cuff surgery and missed portions of the next two years with elbow troubles.

He's back now with the Dodgers but can't start because his arm still isn't strong enough to recover for his next start.

SoxxoS

02-21-2005, 04:25 PM

:mad:

Yes. It's a coincidince that after being pitched into the ground at a young age in the early-mid 90s, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere all suffered career-ending injuries.

Ask Mark Prior and Kerry Wood what Dusty has done to their arms. Looking at their bullpen this year, we might see Kerry's arm on Ebay before the end of the season.

samram

02-21-2005, 04:26 PM

My bad (and I realized it right after I posted), not career-ending, but...

Alvarez missed all of 2000 and 2001 with rotator cuff surgery and missed portions of the next two years with elbow troubles.

He's back now with the Dodgers but can't start because his arm still isn't strong enough to recover for his next start.

It's too bad too because he has thrown the ball pretty well the last couple of years. I looked at his IP and he only went over 200 innings in 1993 and 1996, and 1994 was shortened, so he really didn't get worked too much early in his career. I think a lot of his problem was, and is, conditioning. I could see him being a guy who just neglected himself and relied on natural ability, and it backfired on him.

JRIG

02-21-2005, 04:29 PM

It's too bad too because he has thrown the ball pretty well the last couple of years. I looked at his IP and he only went over 200 innings in 1993 and 1996, and 1994 was shortened, so he really didn't get worked too much early in his career. I think a lot of his problem was, and is, conditioning. I could see him being a guy who just neglected himself and relied on natural ability, and it backfired on him.

I don't have these numbers in front of me, so you'll just have to trust me.

But I remember a lot of high (120+) pitch games for Alvarez because of his lack of control and high walk totals. This can be even more damaging than the numbers of innings pitched.

rdivaldi

02-21-2005, 04:32 PM

:mad:

Yes. It's a coincidince that after being pitched into the ground at a young age in the early-mid 90s, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, and Jason Bere all suffered career-ending injuries.

Huh? I have yet to see any statistical evidence on how Alvarez and Bere were "pitched into the ground". Bere never pitched more than 200 innings in a White Sox uniform and Alvarez never pitched more than 217. I don't have any pitch count stats though.

I will agree that it isn't good to run a kid in his 20's out for 250+ innings season after season. But I think it has a lot more to do with mechanics and physical stature than innings pitched.

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 04:35 PM

Sorry, but the idea of "Pitcher Abuse points" is completely moronic. It's not a new way to look at the game; it's a stupid way to look at the game. Injuries are unpredictable. You can't make a stat to forsee when they will happen. Stat-heads need to log off of BaseballProspectus.com and actually watch a game once in awhile.

Wow, what a come back, I never you say that before. I would bet I have watch more baseball then you did last year, I digress.

The thing is you can make stats to forsee the chances of something happening in future. You can't name the exact time or place but you can give a percentage that this will happen based on these data points. If you don't think that can be done, then you have no idea how this world works. You know why your insurance cost what it does? Actuary tables. Do you know what those are? They allow insurance companies to enter in factors in order to produce a percentage that this person will die, become sick, get injured on the job, get into an auto accident or have their car stolen. Pitcher Abuse points attempts to do the same. Numbers can be used to predict the future, they won't give the specifics just the probability of something happening.

Wow, what a come back, I never you say that before. I would bet I have watch more baseball then you did last year, I digress.

The thing is you can make stats to forsee the chances of something happening in future. You can't name the exact time or place but you can give a percentage that this will happen based on these data points. If you don't think that can be done, then you have no idea how this world works. You know why your insurance cost what it does? Actuary tables. Do you know what those are? They allow insurance companies to enter in factors in order to produce a percentage that this person will die, become sick, get injured on the job, get into an auto accident or have their car stolen. Pitcher Abuse points attempts to do the same. Numbers can be used to predict the future, they won't give the specifics just the probability of something happening.Yes, I know what actuary tables are. I took a SAS class in college for my CIS degree. If you want to waste your time looking at stats that try to predict player injuries, go right ahead. But it sounds like a sad, boring life to me...

OH NOES, IS EL DUQUE GOING TO GET HURT THIS YEAR BECAUSE HE HAS 14711 PITCHER ABUSE POINTS?!?

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 04:49 PM

Wow, what a come back, I never you say that before. I would bet I have watch more baseball then you did last year, I digress.

The thing is you can make stats to forsee the chances of something happening in future. You can't name the exact time or place but you can give a percentage that this will happen based on these data points. If you don't think that can be done, then you have no idea how this world works. You know why your insurance cost what it does? Actuary tables. Do you know what those are? They allow insurance companies to enter in factors in order to produce a percentage that this person will die, become sick, get injured on the job, get into an auto accident or have their car stolen. Pitcher Abuse points attempts to do the same. Numbers can be used to predict the future, they won't give the specifics just the probability of something happening.Having spoken in favor of pitcher abuse points, let me inject a little reality here. Just because you can calculate it doesn't make it predictive. To my knowledge, no one has ever shown that pitcher abuse points is predictive of anything. It's just a formula someone came up with, and it has plenty of flaws. A guy could start 50 games and as long as he never went over 100 pitches in any of them he would have ZERO pitcher abuse points. Not too realistic.

The PAP system is good, but it does have its flaws. There are more factors than just number of pitches. Things such as high PC innings, the pitcher's mechanics, build, training regimen, etc all come into play. Absent of a better system, I think it has value. Is it always predictive or accurate.?..by no means

Flight #24

02-21-2005, 05:36 PM

Having spoken in favor of pitcher abuse points, let me inject a little reality here. Just because you can calculate it doesn't make it predictive. To my knowledge, no one has ever shown that pitcher abuse points is predictive of anything. It's just a formula someone came up with, and it has plenty of flaws. A guy could start 50 games and as long as he never went over 100 pitches in any of them he would have ZERO pitcher abuse points. Not too realistic.

It also doesn't factor in what type of pitches being thrown, i.e. Charlie Hough's softballs would have had the same impact as Matt Clement's breaking balls. But if you think each one throwing 110 pitches has the same wear on their arm, you're nuts, N-V-T-S nuts.

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 05:42 PM

It also doesn't factor in what type of pitches being thrown, i.e. Charlie Hough's softballs would have had the same impact as Matt Clement's breaking balls. But if you think each one throwing 110 pitches has the same wear on their arm, you're nuts, N-V-T-S nuts.I don't think anyone has suggested that PAP is enough to predict anything all by itself. It's one piece of information, and viewed in the correct light, it's no better or worse than any other piece of information. My problem with a lot of these stats is that someone invents them and just claims they predict something, but almost never does anyone really determine if it actually is predictive of anything.

ma-gaga

02-21-2005, 06:00 PM

I don't think anyone has suggested that PAP is enough to predict anything all by itself. It's one piece of information, and viewed in the correct light, it's no better or worse than any other piece of information. My problem with a lot of these stats is that someone invents them and just claims they predict something, but almost never does anyone really determine if it actually is predictive of anything.

Well. This started by YOU bringing up that Johan had a big jump in innings. All BP has done is tried to clarify how difficult those innings were. Trying to predict future baseball performance has been going on for a century. BP is simply trying to remove the emotion out of the equation and using "formulas" that TYPICALLY carry over from year to year, or from league to league.

There will always be outliers, like Beltre, or Mora, or Brian Giles. Guys that have outhit any forseeable expectation, but outliers shouldn't be used as "proof" that the formula fails. The proof is when you can get a formula to be reasonably accurate for 75%+ of players.

But no worries, by doing this, some people will always have their "take your head out of a book and watch a game" argument to fall back on. :cool:

Just like those annoying Cowboys/Packers fans, "count the rings..." bah!

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 06:07 PM

Well. This started by YOU bringing up that Johan had a big jump in innings. All BP has done is tried to clarify how difficult those innings were. Trying to predict future baseball performance has been going on for a century. BP is simply trying to remove the emotion out of the equation and using "formulas" that TYPICALLY carry over from year to year, or from league to league.

There will always be outliers, like Beltre, or Mora, or Brian Giles. Guys that have outhit any forseeable expectation, but outliers shouldn't be used as "proof" that the formula fails. The proof is when you can get a formula to be reasonably accurate for 75%+ of players.

But no worries, by doing this, some people will always have their "take your head out of a book and watch a game" argument to fall back on. :cool:

Just like those annoying Cowboys/Packers fans, "count the rings..." bah!Hey, I was in favor of PAP. It incorporates the extra wear of high pitch count games, and that's all to the good. But it's not without its flaws. And most importantly, I have yet to see anyone do any kind of real evaluation to see if it actually predicts anything. That's the problem with a lot of these stats. Inventing them is easy. Showing that they actually predict anything is a lot harder and rarely done. Does PAP really predict any better than just total IP?

Flight #24

02-21-2005, 07:04 PM

Well. This started by YOU bringing up that Johan had a big jump in innings. All BP has done is tried to clarify how difficult those innings were. Trying to predict future baseball performance has been going on for a century. BP is simply trying to remove the emotion out of the equation and using "formulas" that TYPICALLY carry over from year to year, or from league to league.

There will always be outliers, like Beltre, or Mora, or Brian Giles. Guys that have outhit any forseeable expectation, but outliers shouldn't be used as "proof" that the formula fails. The proof is when you can get a formula to be reasonably accurate for 75%+ of players.

But no worries, by doing this, some people will always have their "take your head out of a book and watch a game" argument to fall back on. :cool:

IMO the problem isn't usage of stats, it's overreliance on them. I'm sure that's more an issue on message boards where stats are much easier to discuss than in real baseball offices where you have other data including video, measurables, etc more easily accessible.

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 07:17 PM

Having spoken in favor of pitcher abuse points, let me inject a little reality here. Just because you can calculate it doesn't make it predictive. To my knowledge, no one has ever shown that pitcher abuse points is predictive of anything. It's just a formula someone came up with, and it has plenty of flaws. A guy could start 50 games and as long as he never went over 100 pitches in any of them he would have ZERO pitcher abuse points. Not too realistic.

No ****, no one has said abandon common sense. Just because you need common sense to interpet what it says, doesn't mean its a bad tool. And with the context of using it with common sense it has been shown to have a predictive. Sorry, I didn't express that caveat, I thought we would be smart enough to assume that.

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 07:19 PM

Hey, I was in favor of PAP. It incorporates the extra wear of high pitch count games, and that's all to the good. But it's not without its flaws. And most importantly, I have yet to see anyone do any kind of real evaluation to see if it actually predicts anything. That's the problem with a lot of these stats. Inventing them is easy. Showing that they actually predict anything is a lot harder and rarely done. Does PAP really predict any better than just total IP?

Search of BP archives.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=148

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

MRKARNO

02-21-2005, 07:20 PM

If Pitcher Abuse points were the end-all, be-all then Livan Hernandez would have to have his arm amputated, but he's pitched 33+ starts the last 5 years' straight and 30+ the last 7 straight. Some guys are conditioned to take the workload. Others aren't even conditioned to be starters at their best. Pitchers at the top end of the list are more likely to get hurt if they dont have a history of being able to handle the workload.

Jabroni

02-21-2005, 07:21 PM

If Pitcher Abuse points were the end-all, be-all then Livan Hernandez would have to have his arm amputated, but he's pitched 33+ starts the last 5 years' straight and 30+ the last 7 straight. Some guys are conditioned to take the workload. Others aren't even conditioned to be starters at their best. Pitchers at the top end of the list are more likely to get hurt if they dont have a history of being able to handle the workload.Livan Hernandez is a perfect example which just shows what COMPLETE BS this stat is. :thumbsup:

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 07:31 PM

If Pitcher Abuse points were the end-all, be-all then Livan Hernandez would have to have his arm amputated, but he's pitched 33+ starts the last 5 years' straight and 30+ the last 7 straight. Some guys are conditioned to take the workload. Others aren't even conditioned to be starters at their best. Pitchers at the top end of the list are more likely to get hurt if they dont have a history of being able to handle the workload.

Taken form the article I linked before

31% of all injured pitchers had above average career PAP totals for their career pitch counts.
9% of all healthy pitchers had above average career PAP totals for their career pitch counts.
Furthermore, only certain types of injuries were considered. A two-letter code indicated the type of injury (if known). Since pitcher overwork would most often be associated with arm injuries, the only injury categories included were shoulder injury, elbow injury, arm injury, and sore arm. Any injured pitcher with one of these codes was presumed to have injured his pitching arm (the reference does not specify which arm). Note that this categorization considers only the most serious arm injuries, namely those which held a pitcher out of action for a month or more. Less serious injuries, including missed turns in the rotation, and DL stays of less than 30 days, are ignored (and in fact, these pitchers are considered "healthy" as they did not miss 30 or more days due to injury during the season).

Thus not all high use pitchers get injured but a pitcher has a much greater chance of being injured if over used.

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 07:32 PM

Yes, I know what actuary tables are. I took a SAS class in college for my CIS degree. If you want to waste your time looking at stats that try to predict player injuries, go right ahead. But it sounds like a sad, boring life to me...

OH NOES, IS EL DUQUE GOING TO GET HURT THIS YEAR BECAUSE HE HAS 14711 PITCHER ABUSE POINTS?!?

I never said you could predict a player would get injured this year, just he has this chance of being injured. I really think you don't understand what actuary tables are, or you would understand what this stat and others are trying to do.

Ol' No. 2

02-21-2005, 08:46 PM

Search of BP archives.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=148

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477Very interesting read. The second article does seem to show loss in short-term performance after outings of 120 or more pitches. However, these are short-term effects, i.e. loss in performance over the succeeding 3 weeks. It said nothing about long-term effects, and it doesn't necessarily follow that they're the same. Short-term effects have more to do with tiredness and not necessarily injury. The premise is that tired arms are more likely to get injured, but that's still unproven.

Also, an objective look at the data shows significant effects only over 120 pitches. It's often easy to fit data to a power function (cubic in this case), but it's also often erroneous. Power functions are often used in engineering when the actual behavior is unknown because just about any steadily increasing trend can be fit to some type of power function. 120+ pitch outings are sufficiently rare that one could probably just count the number of 120+ pitch outings and come up with just as good a fit.

Dadawg_77

02-21-2005, 09:23 PM

Very interesting read. The second article does seem to show loss in short-term performance after outings of 120 or more pitches. However, these are short-term effects, i.e. loss in performance over the succeeding 3 weeks. It said nothing about long-term effects, and it doesn't necessarily follow that they're the same. Short-term effects have more to do with tiredness and not necessarily injury. The premise is that tired arms are more likely to get injured, but that's still unproven.

Also, an objective look at the data shows significant effects only over 120 pitches. It's often easy to fit data to a power function (cubic in this case), but it's also often erroneous. Power functions are often used in engineering when the actual behavior is unknown because just about any steadily increasing trend can be fit to some type of power function. 120+ pitch outings are sufficiently rare that one could probably just count the number of 120+ pitch outings and come up with just as good a fit.

Look at part two of the second link, it deals with long term injuries.

Ol' No. 2

02-22-2005, 09:46 AM

Look at part two of the second link, it deals with long term injuries.Ahh. I missed that the first time around. Interesting read. There definately seems to be something there. I would have like to see them try some correlations with simple pitch counts or perhaps just the fraction of high pitch-count games. I noticed that he got similar correlations for several different formulae for PAP, which often means that you're trying to model a simple trend with a too-complex model.

There are other, better techniques he could have used, too. He could have done a linear regression of the PAP vs. pitch count model using injury as a variable. Just counting the number of injured pitchers above the line neglects how far above the line they are, which one would reasonably suppose to be important. He could also have used a technique called nominal logistic regression, which is useful for predicting the likelihood of a discrete event (injury) from continuous variables (PAP, pitch count).